Use gas taxes to repair American bridges? Bush says nah.
Sure, gas prices are already pretty high this year, but what would you say to paying five cents more a gallon? This time, the increase isn't a hurricane or trouble in the middle east, but a proposal by the Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. Jim Oberstar, to raise the tax to pay in order to pay for bridge repair across America. President Bush said today that this proposal is a bad idea and that, "The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first. That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."According to the AP, eight percent of the last highway bill (valued at $286 billion) went to highway and bridge projects, but only those singled out by lawmakers. The nickel a gallon increase would be directed to a new bridge repair trust fund.
When all cars get 100 mpg and we plug them in at night to drive the next day, then tax increases like this won't do a lick of good. But until then (so, for a while yet), gas remains a popular plaything of legislators. The bridge collapse in Minnesota last week shows that we need to make sure our infrastructure is up to par. Stepping back and examining priorities so we help everyone is as good advice for Bush as it is for Congress.
[Source: AP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 6:22PM (8/09/2007)
"The nickel a gallon increase would be directed to a new bridge repair trust fund"
Yea, right! Every government "trust" fund ever created has been raided to provide money for social(ist) programs. It's easier to buy votes that way and we all know that career politicians can’t see past the next election.
I "trust" the federal gov't to screw-up everything they touch.
Where’s the damn boarder fence?
Reply
Chris M 7:46PM (8/09/2007)
Just one more major bridge/levee/dam collapse, and not even a Bush veto can stop the demand that the long neglected national infrastructure be repared or replaced. Moreover, the huge national debt and horrid deficits make a substantial tax increase inevitable, especially when interest payments on that debt start threatening vital programs.
Reply
frank78 8:14PM (8/09/2007)
Ditto on that Tim. It took less than 24 hours before some journalists decided to say that the bridge collapse was George Bush's fault. Yup. Apparently the president (of any party) is responsible for everything that happens in a country, even decisions that are made at the state level. Never mind that Minnesota had a recent surplus of a couple Billion dollars recently, where they could have probably repaired every bridge in the state properly with that surplus alone.
This proposed 5 cent gas increase would simply go to more pork projects. More bridges to nowhere. Politicians love to use our money because they think they know what to do with it better than we do.
Reply
MikeW 8:21PM (8/09/2007)
What the f*!^ are they doing with all the money they take from us already? Investing in foreign companies or something, oh they are.
Have you ready a CAFR lately?
Reply
Mike Z 8:41PM (8/09/2007)
The Interstate highway system is an agreement between the federal government: The feds agree to build the roads, and in exchange the states agree to maintain them. PERIOD
Reply
Tim 9:56PM (8/09/2007)
Chris M- I feel ya, man. The problem is "vital" is VERY subjective. I believe that if the constitution SPECIFICALLY says they can do it, then fine. If it doesn't, then they can't and it’s up to the individual states.
Now competition between the states can and will increase quality, promote innovation and lower costs! Damn, our founding fathers were smart!
There, deficit solved, welfare slaves are freed and I get to keep ALL of my income too!
Reply
Dave 12:14AM (8/10/2007)
George Bush doesnt believe in increasing Federal spending on infrastructure and social programs.
Unless the infrastructure and social programs are in Iraq.
Reply
gsolman6 4:07AM (8/10/2007)
Why do people assume that taxes are always rerouted to something irrelevent? The 18.4 cents a gallon gas tax does go to transportation and the bridge to nowhere is kaput last I heard. You can't get something for nothing and whether it is the feds or the state on MN that has to perform the maintenance you can't get around the fact that the infrastructure is underfunded. Taxpayers in other countries bite the bullet and realize that the private sector is not going to shore up their public sector for free and that a gov't which is held accountable for its spending is the best way to attack these problems.
Bush is afraid of the economic consequences of a new tax? What are the consequences of doing nothing?
Reply
rgseidl 6:03AM (8/10/2007)
The alternative to pork-barrel spending by Congress is to let private companies build and maintain motorways and bridges. They would have to charge tolls to recoup their investments, of course.
With passive RFIDs and other technologies that can be done without expensive toll booth personnel these days. Surveillance cameras installed here and there plus network connectivity and software would automatically identify cheaters and expose them to fines. If a national standard for the RFID tags and billing can be implemented, you would need just one such device in your vehicle.
If the profit-oriented private sector is really more efficient than government agencies, the long-term cost should be lower.
Reply
Arnie 7:17AM (8/10/2007)
This is the lefty mentality in action: "A bridge collapses - let's have a new tax!"
Reply
Allen 7:34AM (8/10/2007)
It seems to me that the first course of action, is to start making the gov't accountable. This is why taxpayers want openness in spending bills by congress. Whether or not the bridge to nowhere was approved or not, the fact remains, it was proposed. How many such projects have made it through. How many of these pet projects would it take to fund the infrastructure.
As Bush stated, politicians decide and vote on the priorities for funding. They would rather give money to rich farmers who grow nothing to bridges that need repair. Which brings up a question that hasn't been answered as far as I know. Do we really know what the state of the bridge was before it collapsed. Who does the inspection, what methods are used, who over see the inspectors? If it's like most everything else in gov't. it's the politicians and their committees.
Bottom line, start making politicians accountable.
P.S. Tim, what makes you think welfare slaves want to be freed. They keep voting for those who will keep give them more of our hard earned money.
Reply
Pete 7:54AM (8/10/2007)
As many have already stated, infrastructure is one of the main purposes of getting taxed. That's the FIRST thing that should be paid for, not the last. Cut other excessive programs and put the money back to infrastructure.
Reply
small-wee-wee 8:31AM (8/10/2007)
I believe a poor infrastructure will solve our MPG/Gas price problem. Bad roads lead to traffic which lead to fed up commuters who will then take the train. Do nothing, problem solved.
Reply
Snark 9:02AM (8/10/2007)
"Bush is afraid of the economic consequences of a new tax? What are the consequences of doing nothing?"
Absolutely nothing at all. Hell, rebuilding bridges boosts GDP.
Reply
Snark 9:03AM (8/10/2007)
"It took less than 24 hours before some journalists decided to say that the bridge collapse was George Bush's fault. Yup."
Mere hyperbole. Cite or retract.
Reply
Henry 9:16AM (8/10/2007)
rgseidl,
Makes a lot of sense what you say but it will probably be the "private" comapny Haliburton who ends up with that contract. Unless they give it to the municipilaties to decide on their best candidate.
Reply
Mulad 9:40AM (8/10/2007)
Okay, let's do some math. Say your car averages 27 mpg and you drive 15,000 miles/year. You're using 556 gallons of gas each year. A five cent tax on 556 gallons adds up to $27.80, less than it takes to fill a single tank these days.
Reply
Mulad 9:51AM (8/10/2007)
Actually, let me see how this would affect me directly. My car gets 39 mpg and I drove 9000 miles last year. I'd pay about $11.54 more for fuel over the course of a year with a 5 cent tax. Few CDs are that cheap...
Reply
Tim 10:42AM (8/10/2007)
Mulad- Just add it to all the other layers of taxes and you'll discover that 50% of your gross labor is redistributed to those who didn't work for it.
Allen- They treat Welfare slaves like they treat Tax Slaves... simply teach them from a VERY young age that there is really just no alternative to the slavery. In America it was against the law to teach slaves how to read. That is still true today and that's why the gov't schools are so poor. If children were really taught how to think for themselves, the next generation would rebel and free itself from slavery of both kinds.
Reply
bill 10:24AM (8/10/2007)
President Bush is right. Congress pisses away countless billions of dollars every day on worthless programs; then Congress will turn around and duplicate the same worthless programs because the original ones aren't working.
What goes on in Congress would be consider criminal activity for the rest of us. If a small lie won't work for Congress then a bigger lie has to be put on the table, Global Warming anyone?
Don't forget it was Congress that gave us baseline budgeting. What is that you say? The baseline budget may allow a 10% budget increase each year for a government agency or program. If the budget is increased only 6% our elected officials will stand before a microphone and say the budget has had a draconian cut of 4%. When, in point of fact, the elected "A" hole has just increased the budget by 6%.
Let the effing bridges fall, and good luck to us all.
Reply